By choosing politics over fundamental trade economics Justin and Chrystia from Canada have painted themselves into an isolated position on the renegotiated North American Trade deal. Here’s the basic Canadian conundrum.

The U.S. and Mexico have agreed to manufacturing origination terms; wage and labor improvements; elimination of AG subsidies and non tariff barriers; and removal of all protectionist tariffs – so long as the structural terms of commerce are upheld.

In order for Canada to join the U.S. Mexico deal they would need to:

(1) eliminate soft-wood subsidies in the lumber sector;

(2) eliminate protectionist tariffs in the AG (Dairy) sector;

(3) accept the 75% rules of origin, eliminating the NAFTA loophole;

(4) agree to the enforcement mechanisms for all the above;

(5) allow U.S. banks to operate in Canada (financial sector).

Each of these five issues, now locked-in and agreed by the U.S. and Mexico are “take-it-or-leave-it” terms for Canada to join. There’s almost no-way, given the politicization of the Canadian plan, for Justin and Chrystia to agree to those terms and keep their fragmented political support base appeased.

Therefore, absent total acquiescence, it is likely Canada will keep their soft-wood lumber subsidies, keep their protectionist Dairy tariffs, keep their banking rules blocking U.S. access, and face a 25% duty on U.S. auto imports – effectively destroying their auto manufacturing sector. Car companies (ex. Toyota) will simply leave Canada and return to building/assembling in the U.S.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. We are here today to do a call on the U.S.-Mexico Trade Agreement. I am joined by United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Lighthizer; Deputy Trade Representative, Ambassador Mahoney; and Assistant to the President, Jared Kushner.

We will be having opening remarks that will be on the record, attributable to the individual speaker. They will state their name prior to speaking. Question-and-answer will be attributable to a senior White House official/senior administration official.

Again, the opening remarks will be on the record, attributable to the individual speaker, and question-and-answer will be attributable to a senior administration official.

With that, I’m going to turn the call over to Ambassador Lighthizer.

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: Yeah. Hi, everyone. This is Bob Lighthizer. I’ll just make a few remarks and then I think Jared will, and then we’ll take questions.

I would say I think this is an extremely historic time. I think that we had a NAFTA agreement that had gotten seriously out of whack, that had led to large trade deficits, and that needed updating; it needed modernizing consistent with the way the economy works now.

I think we had an enormous amount of hurdles to overcome to renegotiate an agreement that had about $1.1 [trillion] or $1.2 trillion worth of total trade, by far the biggest agreement of its kind in the world.

We had a number of — I’m just trying to give you a little context. We had a number of rounds — seven rounds — over a period of almost exactly one year. Some of these rounds had as many as a 1,000 people in it because you’re negotiating — from the three countries — because you’re negotiating so many complicated provisions.

We’ve now come out the other side of that process with Mexico. We hope that Canada can join in now, and expect them to begin that process very soon.

With respect to the United States and Mexico, we have an agreement that is absolutely terrific. I think it is fair to say we’ll do a rebalancing. I think it’s going to lead to more jobs for American workers and farmers, but also more jobs for workers and farmers from Mexico.

I think it’s going to modernize the way we do automobile trade, and I think it’s going to set the rules for the future at the highest standards in any agreement yet negotiated by any two nations for things like intellectual property, and digital trade, and financial services trade, and all of the things that we think of as the modernizing, cutting-edge places that our economy is going.

So this is great for business. It’s great for labor. It has terrific labor provisions in it. Stronger and more enforceable labor provisions that have ever been in an agreement by a mile. Not even close. And these modernizing provisions are also the greatest that anyone has ever had.

So we’re very, very excited about it. We’re very, very happy to be partnering with Mexico on this difficult process of negotiations. And we look forward to having this — either be joined by Canada or not — but go through to a very successful conclusion of the Congress, hopefully with overwhelming Republican and Democratic support, and have it lead to real, tangible benefits for our workers and our farmers.

Now, with that, I’ll let — I think Jared wants to make a comment, and then we’ll take questions.

MR. KUSHNER: Thank you, Ambassador. And I also want to point out that this was a deal that was done, really, in almost record time. We did it very quickly for one of these trade deals. And a big part of why we were able to do that is because of the great cooperation we had with the Mexican government. We had a very constructive relationship. It was very focused on the future. We were not — we were willing to address the problems that each side had. And it was by having a very constructive and frank dialogue over the course of many months that we were able to reach a very quick agreement by the standards of these trade agreements. So I do give a lot of credit to the Mexican negotiating team, obviously to Ambassador Lighthizer and his team, and also to President Pena Nieto and President-elect Lopez Obrador.

We believe, very strongly, that Mexico is our neighbor. Our countries share a lot in common. And solving the problems that we had in our trading relationship will hopefully be a springboard off of which we can address a lot of other issues that we share together. But the spirit of cooperation and trust that’s been built between our countries, as we’ve worked very closely over the past year and a half together, hopefully will just continue to get better and lead to an even better, more prosperous, and safer relationship between the two countries.

So we came in with a joint objective. The same objective we both had was for us to make America better off and to make Mexico better off. And I think what we were able to accomplish with this deal is really to create a win-win transaction. And there, hopefully, will be a lot more to come.

I’ll just say, finally, that the President — obviously, he’s fighting for America. He’s fighting for our workers. He’s fighting for our companies. And he will be tough, but at the end of the day, he’ll be fair. And we presented a deal, ultimately with his leadership, that he thought was fair deal that would make our country better. And so he was — so he was happy to do it.

And with that, I’ll pass it maybe to Ambassador Mahoney, or we could open up for questions.

AMBASSADOR MAHONEY: You guys have said it all. Let’s start with questions.

♦Q Hey, good afternoon. How do you expect Canada is going to respond to the news of this deal? And how much of this big announcement today was designed to put pressure on Trudeau? There seems to be a real suggestion here that the train is leaving the station; you’re either on it, or you’re going to get left behind.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t — you know, this wasn’t designed to put pressure on anyone or anything like that. We’re in a position where we had a negotiation that went on for close to a year. The last few months — several weeks, I guess I’d say, more accurately — we decided we were better off to try to get a deal with one party and then hopefully the other.

It tends to be the way these things work in any event, right? It’s hard to have three people all just have the lightbulb go on at the same time. So this is not part of the negotiating strategy or anything. We did it in what I think to be the sensible way. We worked with one party. We got through. We worked it out. And now we’re bringing the other party in. The other thing — or the other party is coming in for the talks.

The other thing I would say is, let’s remember that we had seven rounds, as I said, and literally tens of thousands of hours of negotiating that were either bilateral between the United States and Canada, or trilateral.

So it isn’t like Canada is coming in at the last minute. They know the issues; we’ve talked about all these issues. And I think this is a normal, orderly way to arrive at an agreement with three people.

♦Q Thank you. Where do things stand on the U.S. demands for a sunset provision and changes to investor-state dispute resolutions?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So we have an alternative to sunset, which we think works. It accomplishes what we need to accomplish, and it also protects the interests of investors, may they be in Mexico or the United States.

So the way our agreement would work is we have a 16-year period — and we would have a review after 6 years, where we would hope to work out problems. And then, at the end of that review, we would expect that the agreement would be extended for another 16 years, and that you would think of it as more or less a rolling forward of the agreement timeframe, but with real opportunity for a review in a way that will keep both modernizing on track and keep disputes from festering. So that’s number one, the first question.

The second on the ISDS: We have a process wherein there will be an ISDS provision for everyone in both countries, who — which ISDS will be limited in the following ways, essentially –and that is, they’ll be for expropriation for a national — failure to give national treatment or failure to give MFN.

With respect to companies that have contracts with the government and either government: In certain sectors, they get the old-fashioned ISDS, and those sectors are oil and gas, infrastructure, energy generation, and telecommunications. So that’s the answer to that question.

♦Q Thanks so much for doing this call. I wanted to find out, are the number of TN visas changing in this new agreement? Is it a part of it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No.

♦Q Great. Thanks very much. Can you just outline the specifics of how this agreement is different from NAFTA? The President obviously said it was better. Can you sort of specifically lay out how that is the case? And regarding Canada, will the tension between President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau affect the ability to get a deal?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I’m not going to comment on the latter. I don’t know that there is any tension. The reality is that leaders of nations tend to do what’s in the interest of their nation, and that’s what I expect to happen in most cases, or almost all cases.

So in terms of the way this is better than NAFTA 1.0, that’s a very, very, very long answer. It’s better in all respects. But having said that, I’ll just mention some of the high, high — you know, the top lines.

One, the rules of origin for automobiles — remember automobiles are hundreds of billions of dollars in trade — are much more detailed, and would be much better for the region and for the United States.

The labor requirements are totally different. They weren’t even in the agreement in the last one. And they’re completely enforceable.

In areas like digital trade, financial services, IP, all of the kinds of things you think of as a new economy, we are setting newest high-level standards that are not only better than NAFTA 1.0 but are also better than TPP or, I would suggest, any other agreement that’s been negotiated.

So to me, it’s innovative. I think this alternative method of review is innovative, that it will give both people the focus of a strong, viable agreement that goes on for years, and years, and years.

And with respect to every sector — environment — every sector, this is an improvement not only over NAFTA — the original NAFTA — or I should say, the agreement formally known as NAFTA, but also far better than TPP.

So there literally is not an area where we didn’t plus up what we had done before. And this with the cooperation of both; this is not just the United States. The Mexicans also wanted this result.

♦Q Thank you for doing this call. In the Oval Office, you said that you expected to notify Congress by Friday of the new deal, which would be signed by the end of November. What type of deal do you envision notifying Congress about? And what type of deal will Congress — or should Congress be prepared to sign at the end of November with many GOP leaders now weighing in and saying that any deal has to be a trilateral one?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, first, so the way this will work is, we send up a letter and then 90 days later it is signed by the heads of government. Right? So that’s basically the process.

And what we will do is, ideally, Canada will be in and we’ll be able to notify that. If Canada is not in, then we’ll notify that we have an agreement with Mexico and that we’re open to Canada joining it.

So it clearly is something that we believe is consistent with the statute. And in terms of — I don’t know, you know, and of the views of whoever the GOP leaders you’re talking about, but I think there are a lot of people who think we’re better off with all three countries involved. And I hope we will get to that result.

♦Q Hi, and thanks for doing the call. To follow up on that question, when you notify Congress of the renegotiation, that notification indicated that they’d be trilateral discussions. How can you notify — if Canada doesn’t join on — how could you notify a bilateral agreement if that initial notification was for a trilateral discussion?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I’ll just repeat it one more time. We’re going to — if it comes to that, ideally we’ll have the Canadians involved. If we don’t have the Canadians involved, then we will notify that we have a bilateral agreement that Canada is welcome to join. And we think that satisfies our requirements — the requirements of the statute.

♦Q Hi there. Can you tell us if you think that you’re confident that those labor provisions you’re speaking about will suffice for Democrats to support this deal?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So I guess I missed — the question is, do I think the labor provisions will —

♦Q Yes, sir. You were talking about those labor provisions. Do you think that that will be enough for the Democrats to support the deal?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, thank you. Yes. I — it certainly is my hope. I can’t, obviously, speak for members; they make their own decisions. But I believe there has never been a trade agreement remotely as good on labor from the point of view of organized labor and Democrats, for whom that’s a high priority, than this one.

So it is in detail. It lays out the obligations, which are all obligations which the United States has and which Mexico is having. Mexico is in the process of reforming their labor laws.

And it is — they are across the board; they require secret ballots — all the kinds of things that we would expect. And they are enforceable. They’re enforceable. Mexico can enforce these obligations against us and we can enforce the baseline obligations against them.

So I do believe when this is studied and looked at by the people, be they Republicans or Democrats, for whom this is a major issue, they’re going to say this is the most forward-leaning labor provisions ever agreed to, and they can be completely enforceable. So I’m optimistic that we’re going to get a lot of bipartisan support.

♦Q Yes, sir. Thanks for holding this call. President Trump talked about terminating NAFTA. Just to clarify, he meant that in the context of getting a separate — getting, in addition to the deal announced today, a separate bilateral deal with Canada, since two bilateral deals would therefore represent — make NAFTA moot. Is that the case? And what hopes do you have that Canada is available or willing to do a separate bilateral deal?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. First of all, I should add that, on the labor provisions, these were endorsed by the President-elect, who’s very forward-leaning — of Mexico, very forward-leaning on labor issues also. Because they were part of the negotiations and were engaged on some provisions, but particularly this provision.

What was the other question?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It’s on whether —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, yeah, the issue of termination. So, I’m sorry — the issue of termination. It’s impossible to have two agreements at the same time. Whenever you have an agreement that supplants another agreement, you have to pause or get rid of the prior agreement. How you do that is something that we’re still in the process of looking at. At a minimum, the new agreement will supplant the old agreement. Right? Just as a technical matter.

We did that when we went to NAFTA from the 1988 Canadian deal. So I think we have to — every strategy, every tactic is not laid out at this point, but notionally, what the President is saying is you can’t have two agreements like this. And when you get a new agreement, you’re not going to have NAFTA anymore.

♦Q Hi. Yes, you mentioned oil and the ISDS. Can you explain exactly what the changes are regarding the oil industry and how — oil investments — and how that will be handled at the request of the new government? And also just going back, just for clarification, on the sort of sunset replacement, you said it’s extended for 16 years but revised or reviewed every 6 years? Did I understand you correctly?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me answer the first question first, which is, regarding oil and gas investments in Mexico, given the way that the Mexican energy sector is set up, those companies — or American companies operating down there — have contracts with the Mexican government. For those companies, there’s no change in ISDS. They continue to have the full suite of ISDS protections that they enjoy under NAFTA 1.0.

And with regard to the review and term extension provision, the way it works is that there’s a 6 — there’s a period of a 16-year term on the deal, but every 6 years you have a review. At each 6-year review, the parties can decide to extend the term another 16 years.

♦Q For a fresh 16 years.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: For a fresh 16 years. Right.

So you would go — you know, the first instance, if you get to your 6, and the parties decided that they wanted to push it out another 16 years, you’d then be — you’d be 16 years from your 6. So you’d be at — I guess at year 22.

So we — but if the parties decide at year 6 that they do not wish to bump it out another 16 years, then what they will do is they will meet and have a review every year in the hopes that they can solve whatever issues have arisen between them, and agree upon another 16-year extension.

So the idea here is that these reviews have consequences. They’re incentives for the parties to deal with any issues, to continue to modernize the agreement. But at the same time, you’re always far enough away from the end to where it, ideally, will not affect investment.

♦Q Hi there. Thanks for doing this call. If Canada were to enter back into the agreement, what would it be called if not NAFTA?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We’ll figure something out, but right now we have a United States-Mexico Trade Agreement that we’re working on. We’ll work with Canada when they — I guess we’re going to start this afternoon with them. And we’re focused more on the substantive issues, and hopefully we’ll get those resolved, and then we’ll pick what the name should be.

Thank you.

♦Q Yes, thank you for doing this call. I just wanted to make sure, specifically: Has Mexico agreed to a bilateral deal if Canada can’t be brought onboard?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think we’re at a position where we’re going to have discussions with Mexico over the — sorry, we’ll have discussions with Canada this week; see where we get to. But I think, at the end of the day, Mexico is in a position where they want to protect their markets, and they’ll hopefully do what’s right for Mexico.

Mexico does have an agreement with Canada through TPP, so it wouldn’t hurt their trading relationship. But again, I think we all have a preference to see it come together. But if we’re not able to do that, then we’ll move on bilaterally.

But for more clarity, maybe ask the Mexicans. So that’s just my speculation.

I am reminded how badly Chrystia Freeland screwed up the negotiations in January of 2018 when she demanded that Canada be allowed to arbitrarily set their own trade import standards with China… This was right after idiot Justin signed Canada on to the TPP trade agreement.

Any canucklehead could see that signing on to TPP and simultaneously demanding to set your own standards for manufacturing origination was a poison pill. It would make the NAFTA fatal flaw infinitely worse for the U.S….. any idiot could see that problem. That was the moment when Lighthizer gave up on Canada.

Ambassador Lighthizer: It is a pleasure to be here in Quebec. Montreal is one of the great cities of the world, and I have not been back in many years, and I’ve missed it. I used to come here in the 70s and 80s with my wife and children to go to Mont-Tremblant and learn how to ski. We loved the French culture, we loved the excellent food, the wonderful skiing and as I recall, it was cold all the time. That hasn’t changed at least.

[…] Now let me turn to the Sixth Negotiating Round and the status of our talks. We believe that some progress was made. We closed one chapter, as Ildefonso [Guajardo] said it was the chapter on corruption, which is a very important chapter, and we made some progress on a few others. More importantly though, we finally began to discuss some of the core issues. So this round was a step forward, but we are progressing very slowly.

We owe it to our citizens, who are operating in a state of uncertainty, to move much faster. Of course, negotiating as a group of three is more difficult than bilateral talks. Often, issues become more complicated and contentious when there are three parties.

I would like to comment on two proposals by the Canadians, one of which has been in the press quite a bit, and that is a presumed compromise on rules of origin.

We find that the automobile rules of origin idea that was presented, when analyzed, may actually lead to less regional content than we have now and fewer jobs in the United States, Canada, and likely Mexico. So this is the opposite of what we are trying to do.

In another proposal, Canada reserved the right to treat the United States and Mexico even worse than other countries if they enter into future agreements. Those other countries may, in fact, even include China, if there is an agreement between China and [Canada]. This proposal, I think if the United States had made it, would be dubbed a “poison pill.” We did not make it, though. Obviously, this is unacceptable to us, and my guess is it is to the Mexican side also.

Finally, I would like to refer, because I think it fits into this context to an unprecedented trade action that Canada brought against the United States very recently. It constitutes a massive attack on all of our trade laws. If it were successful, it would lead to more Chinese imports into the United States and likely fewer Canadian goods being sold in our market.

Now we understand that countries often challenge specific actions taken by another country in the context of trade laws. This is normal and what we expect. But this litigation essentially claims that 24 years ago, the United States effectively gave away its entire trade regime in the Uruguay Round. Of course, we view this case as frivolous, but it does make one wonder if all parties are truly committed to mutually beneficial trade. It also underscores why so many of us are concerned about binding dispute arbitration. What sovereign nation would trust to arbitrators or the flip of a coin their entire defense against unfair trade? (more)

I’m a hobbyist for granular details in U.S. trade history. That moment can be marked as the exact day when the Canadian government made a fatal flaw in their negotiating strategy. That day in January created the place where they are today in August. Isolated.

252 Responses to Justin from Canada Painted His Country Into a Lose/Lose Trade Corner – More Details of U.S-Mexico Deal…

January 2018 is when the Canadian mask slipped. Prior to that was hints, suspicion, doubts. Then they just let it all hang out. Poor them. NOT. This is what you voted for Canada. So live and learn. President Trump figured out what the new Mexican president wanted. LABOR. For his voters. Protections and money. And he got it. What does Tiny Dancer want? Whatever it is he isn’t going to get it.

Trudeau wants to oppose Trump. He is behaving like a democrat, not a head of state. He thought it would be good politics to deny Trump a win, regardless of its effect on the Canadian people. There was never a good faith effort on behalf of Trudeau to renegotiate NAFTA. His goal is the same as all democrats; prevent Trump from fulfilling campaign promises, embarrass him, and, ultimately remove him from office. This deal has exposed Trudeau as in over his head.

Justin was elected because of his famous name, but he is a youngster and not very shrewd. It is also true , that if Mexico can start employeeing their people with higher paying jobs, illegal immigration will stop.

Illegal immigration of Mexican nationals to US may stop, or at least be reduced.

With Soebarkah in the Oval Office, the percentage of OTM (Other Than Mexican) illegals crossing our southern border skyrocketed, eventually exceeding 50% by a significant margin. Don’t know what it is today, but I would probably have heard if it had dropped substantially.

The most pressing and dangerous immigrant crisis in the world today, the global hijrah of Mohammedans from the Islamic third world into the civilized nations, with the eventual goal of conquering (e.g. France, Britain, Germany, Canada, United States) or reconquering them (e.g. Israel, Spain, Portugal, Greece, southern Italy, India) through demographic jihad, will not be affected by this agreement in any major way, since Mexico is currently well under 1% Mohammedan.

The caveat is the extent to which AMLO, the Marxist incoming Mexican president, turns out to be sincere and capable in carrying out his expressed desire to crack down on gangs and assist us in preventing northern Mexico from being a launchpad for OTM illegal immigration into the US.

Since he is a Marxist, I have a difficult time imagining that he might be sincere about anything, let alone capable.

Yeah, I trust no Marxist and always view Mexican leaders as delusional and half or full haters of these Uniter States. As long as punishment mechanisms are swift and powerful, I’ll do business with them. But The Wall is still a necessity. Watch Dems and Rinos try to say that because the new deal promises higher wages for Mexicans it means we don’t nee the Wall. Bank on it.

I write as a Canadian. You say Trudeau is not very shrewd. You understate the situation.

Justin Trudeau is as thick as a brick, dumb as a box of hammers. A trust fund baby with a famous name who is out of his depth on almost everything. A walking PC farce.. few modern day politicians can hold a candle to his lowIQ stupidity.

Born and raised in north central ohio. In my youth that area was a smoke stack colony . Everything imaginable was being produced. Drive through that area now… looks like a war zone. Nothing short of economic warfare. Very depressing for me to drive through now. I remember what is was. Had to transplant my family just to survive. Cold anger yeah I have it.

I was born in Orrville Ohio and was sposed to be the 4th generation working at Quality Castings.I am so glad my grandfather raised me to be a mason as they were all masons as well.Moved to Florida and never looked back.Its sad to go back to visit family in Ohio the jobs all went to illegals.My father retired from Quality castings after over 50 years and was only making $14 an hour.Now that my mother in law has passed my wife and I plan on moving back to the east coast, after being in California now going on 9 years its time to leave as soon as possible.

Yeah good question. Florida is getting stoopid fast. (more than normal that is)

Looking at northern Georgia myself atm. Still get a 10 acre place 2k sq ft for decent money up there. Family of 3 so don’t need a lot of space 2k is huge for me. But for 100-200k you can still find some nice land patches near civ but not close. Range in the yard type places. Own well. Hardest part is if you have kids is finding the right locations in the sticks that have the amenities these friggin kids need ….(lemme show you my caring face on that garbage)

TN seems nice I spent time in my youth FT Campbell, Clarksville stc but everyone it seems is flooding TN. SO yeah leary on that. Why go somewhere to have it crowd out.

I just love how these idiots in the MSM are trying so hard to have this agreement with all of its great changes still be called NAFTA.
They are so hell bent in trying to hide from there liberal snowflake base that this is indeed a new agreement. They are trying SO hard to keep in place any crappy part of Obama and Billy boy Clinton’s legacy. Pathetic!

I am from Canada and this is the truth Trudeau has allowed China into Canada to take over everything from natural resourses to nursing homes. Canadians don`t want this at all but the little dancer has a majority gov. He is somehow indebted to china and has made deals with them that none of us know about. It would be good to exspose him

Not to quibble but I believe the Canada Usa auto pact predated nafta. As I recall( I may be wrong) USA auto manufacturers committed to producing in Canada the same number of cars purchased in Canadian domestic market.

Any deviation from that baseline in USA favor (Ie in a new Canada USA bilateral agreement) would be a shock to Canadian system in many ways.

In Canada this a.m., it’s all personal; Mr Trump just plain hates Canada. Further, the disrespect he has shown to a paragon like McCain speaks volumes. Last week’s giddy elation over Lanny Davis’ revelations that President Trump was about to be impeached are MIA. But Trudeau is not; the besieged warrior from Quebec, the prime minister who knows no fear, has engaged in a firm conversation with the American President. Today, he is taking action. Freeland, recalled hastily from an ultra important European mission, is going to Washington. She is predicting that, not to worry, everything will be wrapped up by Friday and that Canada and NAFTA are going to be saved.

I wish it was a joke, but actually, that is pretty much the way media are reporting it here in Canada. Doug A. is not really parodying it, he’s basically just describing it. Canadians working for a living have no representation in these trade talks, similar to the way the last few administrations before Trump largely ignored the interests of working Americans.

since it seems that you are a Canadian perhaps you could tell me
1) why do Canadians hate Trump so much that Justin thinks he can garner votes base on Trump hate?
2) what do they perceive he has done to them to generate such hatred?
3) why aren’t they more focused on what is taking place in Canada?
thanks

Not sure those are really three different questions .. I’ll try a quick explanation. Justin’s party received a majority of the seats in Parliament with only 39% of the popular vote. His “conservative” predecessor Stephen Harper likewise ruled with a legislative majority but no more than 40% of the overall vote. He alienated his base in the same way the establishment Republicans did; he was something like our George W. Bush, and lost an election the same way Mitt Romney did. When Justin’s party elected Justin as leader, they seemed far from power, and Justin looked like a stopgap while they retooled. In the subsequent election, the New Democratic Party vote imploded when its leader virtue-signalled about burqas, the Conservative Party’s base eroded IMO due to cheap-labor high-immigration policies and general ineffectuality, and Justin came up the middle.

Canadian media is something like having PBS and CNN and nothing else. it’s either public broadcasting or entirely owned by a few closely-interlocked big corporations. Canadians do not hear alternative points of view, and also importantly however strange it may seem, neither do Justin and his entourage. Like campus progressives, they are never confronted with other points of view, don’t understand their opponents, and never get critical feedback. For them ordinary Canadians are deplorables. It’s no help that the current Conservative Party resembles the Republicans if Jeb Bush had won the primaries.

We need political leadership that supports Canadians as strongly as Trump supports Americans, but don’t hold your breath.

Exurban – between you, Dekester, and a few other Canadian Treepers who give us the straight scoop about the Canadian government shenanigans, the vote mechanisms, and the Canadian Pravda media, we (who have never been there nor know anyone there) could not really know or understand.

Thank you sincerely for all of your group’s posts that clarify the issues from the conservative Canadians’ POV.

disrespect to McCain, where exactly and how? It seems you’ve drunk the msm kool-aid that is using the death of Senator McCain to attack Trump… by the way which Senator passed on the bogus “dossier” trying to overthrow a duly elected president????

Plus McCain told President Trump NOT TO COME TO HIS FUNERAL. Then MSM still expects all kinds of fake sympathy? Get real, everybody is human, including PDJT. How many others would be gushing over McCain when he committed sedition?

I don’t understand how Chrystia Freeland got her job. Look at her background, no economics, business, or law degree, her degrees are in literature and history. Then she was a journalist and an editor. She entered politics in 2013. She has, it appears, no business or economics experience, she has never run a company, never been involved in anything that would be useful for her current position except possibly her experience working at some financial newspapers. Why Canada is relying on her to make good business deals for the country I have no idea!

You make some great points! For me watching canada nowadays is like watching the former hussein regime in the US. Bumbling, painfully incompetent idiots.
At least now the idiots are not hamstringing my country.

SD put together an absolutely incredible thread explaining the two options our President has when dealing with Congress. The good news is that we are in a win win scenario.

Thread by @TheLastRefuge2: "1. There has been some confusion about whether NAFTA is indeed actually "dead", and whether the newly announced b Mexico needs Congressional approval. The short answer is, it depends. 2. President Trump has two routes (bot […]" https://t.co/WyHlJmRfBK

With Japan trade negotiations (read: Toyota) set to begin in the next few weeks the pressure on Trudope to do something is immense. No matter what he does, if Japan sees a better deal, in light of US-Mex-Can negotiations, to sell cars into the US then US-Canada car tariffs will just be ink on a piece of paper and the Canada automobile industry will just whither away.

On banks, if there still exists the non-tariff barriers to US banking, then it will only be fair and reciprocal that we show Cdn bank branches the door.

I wonder if Trudope and Freelander realize that the snow has broken loose under their feet and there is a long, bumpy, crushing slide to the bottom in their future?

I think they understand that their footing underneath has given way. Optics are more important to them at this point, whatever deal they make. They hear the criticism and they know that Justin is completely limp so here is their chance to show strength at the expense of Canadian citizens. I wonder if they even consider Friday a deadline? I think they will try to crash through that.

It would be interesting to see the following question or comment made, when the critics of the President’s handling of the US economy go on one of their “he is anti-free trade” rants. It is a very slight twist on the MAGA explanation often made.

Why is it OK for our “trading partners” to enforce tariffs, laws and regulations that are clearly meant to benefit their workers, elites and national economic interests but not for the US government to do the same??

Right on! It will be curious when Trump pulls this off to see how the MSM and Dems will spin it in a bad light. MSM just is hell bent on destroying Trump. They rather cut off their noses to spite their face. Amazing

I lived in Canada back in the mid 1980s. Then the Canadian dollar was worth about 71 cents of a US Dollar. Canadians were not amused about this because it meant it cost them more of their own currency to buy urgent surgeries in the US that they couldn’t seem to get under their own socialized medical care. The NAFTA loophole enabled the Chinese to use the situation to dump their pathetic Chinese imitation products on the US and at the same time allow the Canadians to boast about their own newly more powerful economy. Unfortunately, the Canadians became dependent upon the Chinese for the improvement in their exchange rates. So now Canadians can better afford their surgeries but cannot afford to leave the hind teat of the Chinese. Trump is trying to help them with the hind teat problem, but they know that the dollar will rebound against their currency and leave them to spend more of their own money on their own health care. The worst development is the dumping of cheap Chinese manufactured pharmaceuticals on the US by using the NAFTA loophole. In short, Canada’s economy has done quite well as long as they supply the biggest consumer market in the world with products made in the worst manufacturing economy in the history of the world. The Canadians are not and have never been our friends, but they have always been their own worst enemy. Eh?

Secretary Ross pointed out the fatal flaw in all multilateral trade agreements: Every party to the agreement gets every trade concession.

This is an essential insight to how the POTUS Trade Team approaches these agreements and why multilateral trade agreements are going the way of the dinosaur.

This approach is based upon the fact that not all national economies are the same.

This very obvious fact has been ignored in every multilateral trade agreement the US has entered.

What Mexico needs in a trade agreement with the US is not the same as what Canada needs.

I think the Mexican negotiators saw this clearly and jumped at the chance to rapidly conclude a trade agreement with the US that would reflect Mexico’s national economic interests.

As much as I hate to say it, Jared Kushner pointed out something very important: building trust through a mutually-satisfactory win/win trade agreement creates the conditions for working on other points of contention between the US and Mexico.

To your last point, it is vitally important that the other side’s negotiation team is reliable. If they aren’t the entire exercise is a waste of time. I think Canada showed they aren’t serious negotiators by the Kudlow incident and starting with gender issues the last time they sat down. If Mexico can talk business then Canada can certainly get it done. Canada has been speaking to their lobbyists and influencers trying to find some leverage. That’s why I think Canada/Justin will feel pain on dairy in return. Auto is a large percentage of Canada’s economy it makes no sense for Canada’s economic future – but, then, we are really talking about Justin’s future anyway.

There is a ‘dairy cartel’ in Canada’s main dairy-producing region and they, apparently, have a great deal of political clout with Trudeau’s Liberal Party. I don’t know the details, but I assume the automakers do not have as much clout…yet.

What the Canadian leadership is hoping is that the EU will come to their rescue because the EU has not solidified whatever agreement the EU trade representative presented to POTUS a few weeks back (remember that?).

The bottom line for the EU is that they are unlikely to trade the Canadian consumer market for the US consumer market and, I suspect, they will be quite shocked to discover this fact.

The rarely spoken fact is that the US has been starved of capital investment for 30+ years and there is alot of room for growth of the US economy without trading with the rest of the world.

POTUS and Team know this and are, whatever their ‘fair trade’ inclinations, not afraid for the international trade to go down to a trickle if needed.

The Canadian trade negotiators are simply unable to make the necessary adjustments to the Trump World Order in trade.

Decent Canadians who understand the situation are terrified of what will happen to the Canadian automobile sector.

There are plenty of plants in the US just waiting to receive the line operation equipment currently in Canada.

Intelligent Canadians know that if auto manufacturing goes to the US, it may never come back.

There are quite a few ‘moving parts’ in ROI decisions by business and taxes is one of them.

Another is the costs associated with the transfer of manufacturing technologies from one location to another.

Whether Canadian automobile production transfers to — and stays in — the US is a matter of ROI in the context of a total cost-benefit analysis for the time-horizon under consideration.

The basis for reducing taxes from the Republican perspective is the Laffer Curve. What Laffer purports to have identified is that the break-even point between lower taxes and increased revenue is around 23%, which is very close to where the US is now.

Using the logic that supports lowering corporate taxes that has been the basis for Republican policy for decades, there is no reason to lower corporate taxes as the goal is to increase tax receipts by growing the economy.

I could see lowering corporate taxes for corporations of a certain size, those corresponding to small and medium businesses, but I am not inclined to give the existing mega-corporations any further tax cuts.

Historically, if unionized US auto workers went on strike, and it went to mediation, and a federal judge eventually ordered an end to the strike and made all the US workers in various Midwest states go back to work, then the Canadian unions could have a “sympathy strike” to show a united front with their American union pals.

Enough of the industry was located in Canada that the US auto companies would not be able to get all the parts they needed to build cars on our side of the border, so the unions would still have them over the barrel, despite them going to the great lengths of improved salary offers, benefits, etc., necessary to get the buy-in of the federal judge.

So if the President and Lighthizer and the whole wolverine team can just aim a Martian disintegrator ray at the Canadian auto parts industry, and turn Canada into non-automotive producing nation, that could turn out to be a blessing to our industry, in the event of future major automotive strikes.

Great detailed summary of the way things stand in this major trade negotiation between the 3 countries, thanks for that.
I sincerely believe Canada is going to take a beating here. They want there cake and …… but they’ll be denied, of course.

Canada’s Auto Industry will implode:
• Assembly will shift to America and optionally, Mexico.
• Parts will shift to America.

Canada’s Lumber Exports to America will be displaced:
• California just opened Timber Harvesting to reverse DECADES of neglect.
• Alaska will likely be reopened to the same.

Canada’s Mining Exports to America will be displaced:
• Northern states are resuming and expanding mining operations.
• Alaska should be right behind.

Congrats, Canada:
• You are destroying your economy to protect Dairy Farmers!
• Do you think for a second that President Trump won’t put retaliatory tariffs on any exports you have left?
• Do you think your most productive businesses and business leaders won’t be relocating to America to escape the soon-to-escalate tax and regulatory suffocation that your Socialists will need to survive?

Sundance – Appreciate your attention to providing pertinent transcripts of these trade meetings and conferences. Your twitter thread that was linked here in the comments section is also excellent and a great summary to which to refer the as-yet non-believers.